Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States vs. State Essay

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of United States vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company - Essay Example The issue of Modified Standard 208 by the ordinance of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) made the incorporation of passive restraints such as air bags and passive seatbelts mandatory in all automobiles manufactured after September 1982 to ensue better public as well as occupant safety. However, before this new regulation could come into effect, a new Secretary of Transportation assumed office and the implementation of the Standard was delayed for one year. NHTSA, then, called a public hearing after reopening the rulemaking process, where forth the Modified Standard 208 was retracted. Their claim stated that the utilitarian values of air bags and passive seatbelts are no longer justifiable in automobile security given, questioning the benefits of passive restraints. However, this withdrawal of the rule indicated that the decision was not a result of the proven ineffectiveness of passive restraints but rather one based on the interests of large automobile companies . As was duly shown, a staggering 99% of the motor vehicle industry was at that time incorporating automatic seatbelts into their models that could be easily detached. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association (MVMA) of United States demanded a court review of the rulemaking on parameters less ‘arbitrary and capricious’. ... Cutler presented his argument gusto, clarity backed by relevant statistics and figures to show that the public reception of passive restraints were not only negative but that detachable seatbelts, in cases of accidents, were safer to the occupant. I find both sides were convincing and clear enough in presenting their points. The questions by the judges were crucial, and to some extent, indicated a slight incredulity towards the justification of the repealing of the restrictive regulation stipulated under Standard 208. The court was to review and issue a ruling based on whether â€Å"facts found and the choices made† were relational or truly â€Å"arbitrary and capricious†. The court ruled the facts directing the previous rescinding to be insufficient and inconclusive in indicating that passive restraints were not preventive of accidents. I believe, to an extent, the agency’s decision to rescind the Standard may have been a result of bureaucratic politics, a natur al consequence of the change of power as the new Secretary of Transportation assumed office. However, it is indubitable that the court could find no â€Å"direct evidence† to justify the retraction of the Standard 208 and was unbiased in its ruling. Impact and Significance The historical Marbury vs. Madison case of 1803 initiated a momentous change in the US legal system by establishing the ground for judicial review in assessing the constitutional applicability and integrity of legislations. The ideological and constitutional effect of the Marbury vs. Madison case has been enduring. The key importance of the MVMA versus State Farm Mutual Insurance Company lies in the fact that this case throws into sharp relief the pitfalls as well as the effectiveness of the judicial review system. It is also significant in